What weapons are Taekwondo?

[Flying Crane]

And how does that make the skill somehow not real? It makes the skill limited in scope, certainly, but it doesn't make it not real.

Because by training against a nincompoop you have an utterly unrealistic notion of what an attack with the weapon is really like, and a dangerously unrealistic notion of how you might defend against it.

To say that the other person is faster than me? How is that an unreal expectation? My mile time is like 9 minutes. It's a very real expectation.

No, the other part. The part about trusting too much in the weapon.

So if I trust too much in the weapon, what do you think that means? Do you think that you could get me to fall for a deception and drop my guard and give you an opening to defeat me? Do you REALLY think someone would fall for that, someone who is intent on killing you with that weapon and who knows how to go about it?

 

[oftheherd1]

I don't recall the source of the photo, but I do recall that it claimed that that photo is a group of Vietnamese taekwondo students (specifically soldiers) being trained by Nam Tae Hi. I think it was in The Killing Art that the author talks about bayonet training (as in, bayonet as a weapon) being part of the military curriculum developed by General Choi? I'm working from memory though, I don't have the references handy.

You may be right, but they look more like Koreans to me.

 

[oftheherd1]

You can “what if” it to death and come up with a scenario in which you win.

Yes, but remember? What-ifing keeps the bullfrogs from bumping their butts on the ground if you what if them to have wings.

But... if he is as skilled as you, and he has a weapon such as a sword or spear or staff or three section staff with which he is equally skilled, and he has the room to use the weapon as it was designed, then he wins.

That is what weapons do: they tilt the playing field and make the encounter severely unfair.

But to think of a scenario like “ he relies too much on the weapon and does not expect a strong defense”. That is nonsense.

I am assuming a weapon guy who knows what he is about.

You are assuming an unskilled fellow who happened to pick up a weapon and doesn’t have much notion of what to do with it.

Well you are the weapons expert. I know my GM had a 1st Dan in Kum Do as well, so maybe he wasn't really an expert in that. But he was a GM in Hapkido. Care to hazard a guess as to why he and other GMs wasted their and their students' time training them in sword defense?

And don't misunderstand. I already acknowledged one must be very skilled, and quick to have a chance to defend against a good swordsman. But I don't think swordsmen are somehow endowed with infallible skills that can never be defeated. Considering your complete belief in your abilities with a sword, how many Hapkido or Aikido senior belts have you sparred against and won? And I don't say that to be snippy, just saying if you haven't, perhaps there is something to sword defense you haven't yet encountered, and might not be prepared for. Do you think there is any possibility to that?

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, but remember? What-ifing keeps the bullfrogs from bumping their butts on the ground if you what if them to have wings.



Well you are the weapons expert. I know my GM had a 1st Dan in Kum Do as well, so maybe he wasn't really an expert in that. But he was a GM in Hapkido. Care to hazard a guess as to why he and other GMs wasted their and their students' time training them in sword defense?

And don't misunderstand. I already acknowledged one must be very skilled, and quick to have a chance to defend against a good swordsman. But I don't think swordsmen are somehow endowed with infallible skills that can never be defeated. Considering your complete belief in your abilities with a sword, how many Hapkido or Aikido senior belts have you sparred against and won? And I don't say that to be snippy, just saying if you haven't, perhaps there is something to sword defense you haven't yet encountered, and might not be prepared for. Do you think there is any possibility to that?

I’m not talking about sparring. I’m talking about killing someone.

And as I said before, I’m no weapons expert. But I have enough experience with them to recognize how severely they can unlevel the playing field.

Different weapons have different advantages and disadvantages and these characteristics lie on a continuum. So the circumstances may allow for a greater or lesser chance at defense depending on the weapon and the situation. For example: do you know he has a weapon and is about to draw it, and can you act quickly enough to prevent that? Or is the weapon short enough (a knife) that you can create space and then escape? Or is the weapon long enough (a sword or spear or three section staff) that the space is too cramped to effectively use it?

So these are strategies that could prevent the weapons guy from deploying the weapon.

But that’s is not an actual defense against the weapon in use. Those are very different things.

That is why I made my assumptions if I were to be armed while facing a high level martial artist who is unarmed. The assumption that whatever the weapon I use, I have adequate room to use it as it was designed.

If we are in an empty gymnasium and i am armed with a sword or spear in which I am reasonably well trained, and alert and prepared to use it, I have an advantage that is likely insurmountable by an unarmed opponent.

If the same situation but we are in an open field, my opponent can run away and perhaps escape that way. But if I am armed with a war bow or a gun, and we have 30 paces between us, now the likelihood of his escape is much less, he can’t just run from that. But whatever chances he may have, lie in preventing me from using the weapon, not in countering the weapon, if I have some skill with it.

If I am in an elevator with a spear, that could be a hinderance to me, I can’t deploy it and it gets in my way and an unarmed opponent could defeat me.

So there are all kinds of issues dictated by that continuum. But success in defense relies on preventing the use of the weapon, not in countering the weapon. If the weapon is being used as it was designed and intended, the chance of a successful defense is virtually non-existent.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Because by training against a nincompoop you have an utterly unrealistic notion of what an attack with the weapon is really like, and a dangerously unrealistic notion of how you might defend against it.


No, the other part. The part about trusting too much in the weapon.

So if I trust too much in the weapon, what do you think that means? Do you think that you could get me to fall for a deception and drop my guard and give you an opening to defeat me? Do you REALLY think someone would fall for that, someone who is intent on killing you with that weapon and who knows how to go about it?

Weapons aren't always deployed with high skill. Yes, if someone walks up and shanks me in the back I probably just die, no matter how skilled I am. So I don't train for what to do after I've been killed. I train for what to do with situations I can actually do something about. That's a realistic approach to defense.

 

[Flying Crane]

Weapons aren't always deployed with high skill. Yes, if someone walks up and shanks me in the back I probably just die, no matter how skilled I am. So I don't train for what to do after I've been killed. I train for what to do with situations I can actually do something about. That's a realistic approach to defense.

Of course they aren’t. But if you design your defensive curriculum to work against the unskilled, then you have dropped the bar on the ground. That in no way helps you understand how (or even if it is possible) to defend against the weapon.

Isn’t this the same argument we hear from the grappling crowd? We see video of someone demonstrating defenses against a shoot or something, and the grapplers jump all over it because the guy doing the shoot is clearly incompetent. The argument is the same: if you develop your defensive skills against grappling by training against unskilled grapplers, then you have no real skill at all, if you face a grappler.

It’s the same logic. I am having a hard time understanding why this concept is getting so much resistance.

 

[oftheherd1]

I’m not talking about sparring. I’m talking about killing someone.

And as I said before, I’m no weapons expert. But I have enough experience with them to recognize how severely they can unlevel the playing field.

Different weapons have different advantages and disadvantages and these characteristics lie on a continuum. So the circumstances may allow for a greater or lesser chance at defense depending on the weapon and the situation. For example: do you know he has a weapon and is about to draw it, and can you act quickly enough to prevent that? Or is the weapon short enough (a knife) that you can create space and then escape? Or is the weapon long enough (a sword or spear or three section staff) that the space is too cramped to effectively use it?

So these are strategies that could prevent the weapons guy from deploying the weapon.

But that’s is not an actual defense against the weapon in use. Those are very different things.

That is why I made my assumptions if I were to be armed while facing a high level martial artist who is unarmed. The assumption that whatever the weapon I use, I have adequate room to use it as it was designed.

If we are in an empty gymnasium and i am armed with a sword or spear in which I am reasonably well trained, and alert and prepared to use it, I have an advantage that is likely insurmountable by an unarmed opponent.

If the same situation but we are in an open field, my opponent can run away and perhaps escape that way. But if I am armed with a war bow or a gun, and we have 30 paces between us, now the likelihood of his escape is much less, he can’t just run from that. But whatever chances he may have, lie in preventing me from using the weapon, not in countering the weapon, if I have some skill with it.

If I am in an elevator with a spear, that could be a hinderance to me, I can’t deploy it and it gets in my way and an unarmed opponent could defeat me.

So there are all kinds of issues dictated by that continuum. But success in defense relies on preventing the use of the weapon, not in countering the weapon. If the weapon is being used as it was designed and intended, the chance of a successful defense is virtually non-existent.

Ah, I see, now you are using the what if game.

I understand a man who is highly skilled with a weapon being a serious threat. I hope I never have to defend against that. But if I do, I am glad that I have skills that will improve my chances to survive. If has always been my belief that most people use a weapon because they don't think they have sufficient skills to survive an encounter without one. You may not fit that mold, in which case good on you.

 

[oftheherd1]

Of course they aren’t. But if you design your defensive curriculum to work against the unskilled, then you have dropped the bar on the ground. That in no way helps you understand how (or even if it is possible) to defend against the weapon.

Isn’t this the same argument we hear from the grappling crowd? We see video of someone demonstrating defenses against a shoot or something, and the grapplers jump all over it because the guy doing the shoot is clearly incompetent. The argument is the same: if you develop your defensive skills against grappling by training against unskilled grapplers, then you have no real skill at all, if you face a grappler.

It’s the same logic. I am having a hard time understanding why this concept is getting so much resistance.

I was never taught to seek out those with poor weapons skills to defend against. I agree that would be foolish. But I was taught that in weapon defense some skills would improve my likelihood to survive. You believe otherwise. So be it. No need for further discussion.

 

[skribs]

Because by training against a nincompoop you have an utterly unrealistic notion of what an attack with the weapon is really like, and a dangerously unrealistic notion of how you might defend against it.

So I should assume every person with a make-shift mace is an expert in historical weapon arts?

If I can defend against the most likely use of the weapon, which is by some thug who wants to use a big hunk of wood or metal to knock my block off, then that is a legitimate skill.

I might not be able to defend myself against someone who is an expert...okay. But what is the likelihood that someone who is a historical weapons expert is going to attack me? People with the focus and discipline to become an expert in something don't generally become street thugs.

It’s the same logic. I am having a hard time understanding why this concept is getting so much resistance.

Nobody is disagreeing with your general concept of:

• Weapons give a serious advantage to the weilder
• A skilled weapons user is very deadly
• Against a weapon, an unskilled unarmed person is likely dead

What we are disagreeing with (or at least I am):

• A skilled weapons user in a no-holds-barred match will invariably kill any unarmed opponent
• Training for the basic attack of an unskilled user is useless

I agree that a weapon user is MOST LIKELY to beat an unarmed guy, but it's possible that person will survive and also possible they will triumph. Not a very good chance, but not the absolute certainty that you've been spouting.

I also agree that if I train for defense against a baseball bat swing or an overhand swing with the mace, instead of every possible way you can jab and twirl it, that I'm not going to be prepared for a master maceman. I am going to be prepared for the vast majority of street thugs swinging a baseball bat, and I don't consider that useless.

Isn’t this the same argument we hear from the grappling crowd? We see video of someone demonstrating defenses against a shoot or something, and the grapplers jump all over it because the guy doing the shoot is clearly incompetent. The argument is the same: if you develop your defensive skills against grappling by training against unskilled grapplers, then you have no real skill at all, if you face a grappler.

What is the context? Are they talking about street fights or cage matches? There's a big difference in the skill level of your expected opponents in the ring vs. outside. In the ring you expect someone who is shooting has not only drilled this move thousands of times, but also has planned and drilled every step after to include completing the takedown, controlling you on the ground, and either pinning you, choking you, or breaking your arm. Someone on the street is likely just trying to pick you up and drop you or is going to go for a football tackle instead of a wrestling move or a judo takedown.

There's also the aspect that the grapplers are training specifically for grappling. So they should know how to shoot and should know how to defend a shoot, and what to do after that. Just like I expect someone who does HEMA to know the ins-and-outs of a weapon and how to use it. But for someone where it isn't their focus, less focus can be spent on it.

Then there's the simple fact that in general, when you're doing a how-to video on doing something, you're seeing people move at half-speed for demonstration purposes, which sometimes shows more openings than would be there in a real situation. You can see this a lot in HEMA videos where it appears there's a big opening or an opportunity to counter-attack, but that window isn't there at full speed. (Without seeing the videos you're referencing).

 

[skribs]

@Flying Crane

Tell me something - do you disagree with my assessment that the most likely use of a baseball bat on the street is for it to be swung like a baseball bat? Do you disagree that it is incredibly unlikely that if someone is using a baseball bat on me, they are an expert in all the different strikes you can use it for?

Another question - do you think that if someone has a baseball bat, and they are 90% likely to use one or a couple of strikes, that it is worthless to train for those strikes, because of the 10% chance they might know something else?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Of course they aren’t. But if you design your defensive curriculum to work against the unskilled, then you have dropped the bar on the ground. That in no way helps you understand how (or even if it is possible) to defend against the weapon.

Isn’t this the same argument we hear from the grappling crowd? We see video of someone demonstrating defenses against a shoot or something, and the grapplers jump all over it because the guy doing the shoot is clearly incompetent. The argument is the same: if you develop your defensive skills against grappling by training against unskilled grapplers, then you have no real skill at all, if you face a grappler.

It’s the same logic. I am having a hard time understanding why this concept is getting so much resistance.

If the "shoot" is one that is common enough in untrained fights, even if it sucks, it's a reasonable defense for that. The problem comes when someone teaches that same defense as a way to handle a BJJ shoot. That's really what the grappling folks get irritated about (and rightly so). Same with a boxer's punch. I can teach defenses against a common round punch that are less effective against a compact boxer's hook. They aren't the same attack, really.

That's why I say it's learning to defend against the person with the weapon. We have to understand which people we're learning to defend. Would it be better to learn to defend against a great BJJ or wrestling shoot? Sure, if you have covered all the higher priorities (which depend upon your personal/style aims). If you're only going to allocate a small amount of time (at least initially), it may not be worth starting to that level yet. So you start with the easy ones, and at least folks are prepared for those.

Same with weapons. It's possible for someone to specialize in defending against a sword with empty hands. If they put enough time and real training into it, they might even stand a chance against good swordsmen. But that would have to be their specialty, I think. If that's not what the style is about, then you decide where you're drawing the line and you train to that objective. Maybe it's goombah level, maybe it's pure adrenaline attacks. Whatever level you decide to train to, as long as you understand you're exposed beyond that point, that's fine. I know I'm not training to defend against an elite boxer's punch. I'm probably okay against an amateur (not top-level amateur) at least for a while. I know my fitness level isn't going to let me last against someone who trains like a fiend if the fight lasts long. I know my strength level isn't going to let me overpower a strong wrestler. There are limitations in all that we do. It's okay to say, "I'm training to point X, and accepting the risk beyond that point."

 

[skribs]

If the "shoot" is one that is common enough in untrained fights, even if it sucks, it's a reasonable defense for that. The problem comes when someone teaches that same defense as a way to handle a BJJ shoot. That's really what the grappling folks get irritated about (and rightly so). Same with a boxer's punch. I can teach defenses against a common round punch that are less effective against a compact boxer's hook. They aren't the same attack, really.

That's why I say it's learning to defend against the person with the weapon. We have to understand which people we're learning to defend. Would it be better to learn to defend against a great BJJ or wrestling shoot? Sure, if you have covered all the higher priorities (which depend upon your personal/style aims). If you're only going to allocate a small amount of time (at least initially), it may not be worth starting to that level yet. So you start with the easy ones, and at least folks are prepared for those.

Very good way of saying what I was trying to say.

 

[Flying Crane]

@Flying Crane

Tell me something - do you disagree with my assessment that the most likely use of a baseball bat on the street is for it to be swung like a baseball bat? Do you disagree that it is incredibly unlikely that if someone is using a baseball bat on me, they are an expert in all the different strikes you can use it for?

Another question - do you think that if someone has a baseball bat, and they are 90% likely to use one or a couple of strikes, that it is worthless to train for those strikes, because of the 10% chance they might know something else?

Of course I can agree with you here. What have i said to make you think otherwise?

Honestly, I think you are not actually reading and thinking about what I am saying. My comments are made with some very specific considerations in mind that take the discussion into the realm of academic exercise. I’m not telling you, “dont practice against the possibility of someone attacking you with a weapon”. In fact, you can go back through this thread and see where I have, at least a couple time, agreed that it should be done, or at least that one should fight back.

I think you are having a different discussion than I am having.

 

[skribs]

Of course I can agree with you here. What have i said to make you think otherwise?

Honestly, I think you are not actually reading and thinking about what I am saying. My comments are made with some very specific considerations in mind that take the discussion into the realm of academic exercise. I’m not telling you, “dont practice against the possibility of someone attacking you with a weapon”. In fact, you can go back through this thread and see where I have, at least a couple time, agreed that it should be done, or at least that one should fight back.

I think you are having a different discussion than I am having.

Let's see...

If a competent swordsman or spearman or staffman etc faces off against an unarmed opponent, with sufficient room to wield his weapon freely, and with freedom to use lethal techniques without holding back, then that unarmed fellow is going to die.

The notion that one can build unarmed defenses against these weapons, without somehow creating a situation to stifle the use of the weapon first, I think is fantasy.

That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a good exercise to go through, and it could be fun training. But seriously, the outcome is pretty much a given.

If you assume a modern person WITHOUT sword skills will attack you with a sword, and you develop defensive skills based on that assumption, then you haven’t really developed any skills.

So even as a purely academic/hypothetical exercise, you may as well assume a scenario where the guy with the weapon actually knows how to use it and is pretty good with it. That is the only way to even pretend that the exercise has value.

The academic exercise of the training could be fun, it could be enlightening, but I doubt you will develop a realistic curriculum for such scenarios.

But if your assumption in the training is that the guy with the weapon is incompetent, then you haven’t actually developed any defensive skills against it.

So I’m saying, recognize reality for what it is.

Ok, so what you are really talking about is defending against a low-skilled person swinging a blunt object at you. That is not the same thing as defending against a sword (sharp edge and point, sophisticated techniques), a staff (long reach, blunt thrusting and striking, sophisticated techniques), a spear (sharp point and cutting edge with a long reach, and really fast repeated thrusting stabs and sophisticated techniques), or a three-section staff (long reach, strikes, flexible tie-ups, sophisticated blocks and traps). Those are not the same thing as defending against Jimmy the weekend little-league coach swinging a baseball bat at you. Being able to defend against Jimmy with a bat is not the same as defending against traditional weapons made for war, used with sophisticated methods designed to be quickly lethal.

As to your last couple paragraphs, my point is simply that if you do not develop defenses against a skilled opponent with the weapon, then you haven’t really developed skills against the weapon. You have only developed defenses against an unskilled weapon user. My point is, be realistic about what you have done. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you can truly defend yourself against someone who actually know someone how to use the weapon. My reason for even making the comment was your earlier comment about studying the weapon and studying defenses against it.

I am assuming a weapon guy who knows what he is about.

You are assuming an unskilled fellow who happened to pick up a weapon and doesn’t have much notion of what to do with it.

Sure, but likely (in the modern day and age) against a fellow unskilled with the weapon. That isn’t really understanding how to defend against the weapon.
...
The assumptions are simply that I have sufficient room to use the weapon as it is designed (I’m not fighting with a spear while in the crawl space under my house, for example) and I have full freedom to use the weapon with homicidal intent (it isn’t a sparring match where we all go home at the end of the day).

I don’t care who the opponent is. It could be anyone from the Gracie clan, or your own grandmaster, or whomever the current personality of the moment in MMA is, or some obscure grandmaster whoever from wherever. I don’t care who you want to name as my opponent.

If the match is under those conditions, I will win and he will die.

...

So if you want to come up with empty hand defenses against the weapon, for real, then that is what you are talking about. Otherwise, you are talking about defending against an unskilled opponent who happens to be holding a weapon with which he is also unskilled.

But think about the reality of trying to make a curriculum of unarmed defense against a sword. “If he lunges at you like THIS, then you sidestep like THAT and grab his arm and TWIST and poke him in the eye...”. Seriously, that will only work on the most inexperienced swordsman to ever pick up a weapon. that kind of defense will not work on a swordsman with even modest skills.

That’s what I’m trying to get across: defending against a nincompoop holding a sword is not the same as a realistic defense against the sword, by anyone with any level of real skill at all. If is just fantasy.

Again, my comments are in response to an earlier statement that learning the weapon (with a list of katana, bo, nunchaku, and three-section staff, if I remember correctly) should also include learning to defend against it. Well then that should mean defending against someone who actually knows how to use the weapon effectively. Not a supreme weapons master, but someone with genuine competence. And realistically, that is very very unlikely because these weapons are meant to be game-changers. They are meant to create an enormously and insurmountably unfair advantage. Otherwise it is just pretending.

Yes. Someone unskilled who happens to be holding a weapon, vs. the weapon in how it is really meant to be used, by someone who actually knows how to do so.

I think you don’t understand what a “typical deployment of the weapon” means. I’ll tell you: it is fast and sneaky and repeated and leaves you dead, without a chance to defend against it. It is overwhelming superiority, unless you are defending against a nincompoop. If so, if that’s is what your program is designed against, then your program has no value.

Because by training against a nincompoop you have an utterly unrealistic notion of what an attack with the weapon is really like, and a dangerously unrealistic notion of how you might defend against it.

Of course they aren’t. But if you design your defensive curriculum to work against the unskilled, then you have dropped the bar on the ground. That in no way helps you understand how (or even if it is possible) to defend against the weapon.

That's about a dozen quotes of you talking about how it's completely useless to train for (what you agreed with me in your last post is) the typical self-defense scenario.

Please tell me how I read every single one of those wrong.

 

[Flying Crane]

Let's see...






























That's about a dozen quotes of you talking about how it's completely useless to train for (what you agreed with me in your last post is) the typical self-defense scenario.

Please tell me how I read every single one of those wrong.

You read them wrong.

 

[skribs]

Let me repeat...

Please tell me HOW I read them wrong.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Michael, I think it's lines like this:

But if your assumption in the training is that the guy with the weapon is incompetent, then you haven’t actually developed any defensive skills against it.

Reading that after your recent post, I think I see what you meant me to see. Reading it the first time, it sounded like you were saying there wasn't any sense in working on defending if you can't defend against someone who's skilled, and you can't defend against someone who's skilled, so there's no sense in it (except as an academic exercise).

I think it's a miscommunication.

 

[Flying Crane]

Let me repeat...

Please tell me HOW I read them wrong.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but you are talking about what if someone picks up a bat (sword/stick/weapon of your choice) and attacks you with it, today or tomorrow or next week. You are thinking in terms of useful self defense right now. Do I understand that correctly?

You are defending against an untrained person who is swinging an object at you in an unskilled way. That could happen, and you might successfully defend against it.

I am talking about understanding the true capabilities of the weapon, which is something that is not possible without a higher level of training.

Being able to defend against a nincompoop who swings an object at you does not mean you actually understand a sword, nor that you could defend yourself while unarmed, against a sword.

I also hold that if the attacker weilding the sword is reasonably skilled with it (not a “master”), and you are unarmed, then without some other equalizing factor in the play, you will not be able to defend against it. Because the sword creates such an unfair advantage for the user.

The same is true for the spear, staff, three section staff, and the rest of these traditional and archaic martial arts weapons.

But it is very very unlikely you will ever be attacked by a skilled swordsman. That is why this is a hypothetical, academic discussion. So if you want to train for the nincompoop who might try to swing a sword at your head, by all means, do so.

And playing with weapons is fun and I encourage it.

 

[skribs]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but you are talking about what if someone picks up a bat (sword/stick/weapon of your choice) and attacks you with it, today or tomorrow or next week. You are thinking in terms of useful self defense right now. Do I understand that correctly?

You are defending against an untrained person who is swinging an object at you in an unskilled way. That could happen, and you might successfully defend against it.

I am talking about understanding the true capabilities of the weapon, which is something that is not possible without a higher level of training.

If you take the person out of the equation and only look at the sword, then technically you don't need to learn anything to defend against a sword, because a sword isn't going to jump off a table and slash me. So you must look at the individual. Yes, if you only learn defense against a few basic attacks, then you're not learning to defend against the full capabilities of a swordsman. That doesn't mean the training is useless.

Nobody is arguing that learning basic defenses against a sword is not going to teach you anything against a competent swordsman. I'm arguing what you're saying, which is that you learn nothing useful at all by learning basic defenses that would work against the average person who would pick up a weapon and try to use it in a street fight.

I also hold that if the attacker weilding the sword is reasonably skilled with it (not a “master”), and you are unarmed, then without some other equalizing factor in the play, you will not be able to defend against it. Because the sword creates such an unfair advantage for the user.

The same is true for the spear, staff, three section staff, and the rest of these traditional and archaic martial arts weapons.

I do not believe this is an absolute.

 

[Flying Crane]

If you take the person out of the equation and only look at the sword, then technically you don't need to learn anything to defend against a sword, because a sword isn't going to jump off a table and slash me. So you must look at the individual. Yes, if you only learn defense against a few basic attacks, then you're not learning to defend against the full capabilities of a swordsman. That doesn't mean the training is useless.

Nobody is arguing that learning basic defenses against a sword is not going to teach you anything against a competent swordsman. I'm arguing what you're saying, which is that you learn nothing useful at all by learning basic defenses that would work against the average person who would pick up a weapon and try to use it in a street fight.



I do not believe this is an absolute.

But a nincompoop with a sword is not even using basic attacks with a sword. It is actually less than that. It is just unskilled swinging or poking. Of course it can be hazardous to be on the receiving end of it, but it does not reflect what can be done with the weapon, how extremely effective the weapon can be.

As I’ve said now, facing a skilled swordsman is highly unlikely in the modern day, in most parts of the world. So there is some sense in training to defend against a nincompoop who swings an object at you, which could happen. But be honest with yourself about what these skills are. Don’t fool yourself into thinking you actually are capable of defending against a sword, in the real sense of what that means.

And as to your last point: in a situation as I described it, I would bet my money on the swordsman every single time, no matter who his opponent is.